2009 Studies & Research Blog

If you’ve been paying attention recently to some of the latest research concerning health, nutrition, and essential fatty acids, you know that getting your daily intake of Omega-3 and Omega-6 fats is important.  These have been proven in many studies to help ward off a variety of conditions such as insulin resistance, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and cancer, as well as a regular intake helps to promote higher energy levels, better athletic performance, and decreased incidence of colds and flues.

But, more and more research is also coming out about the type of intake that people are getting.  What’s now being talked about more than the straight health benefits this nutrient offers, is how important it is to be sure you’re taking in the correct proportions of Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids.

A study recently published by the University of Iowa assessed this issue and found that most western diets contain a ratio of 20:1 Omega-6 to Omega-3 acids, while the optimal intake is closer to 1:1.

This is important to pay attention to because a very improper ratio of 3:6 fatty acids can actually set you up for an increase in disease rates, so you could essentially be doing more harm than good.

By educating yourself on the various sources of each individual fatty acid, you would stand a better chance at being sure you are getting an even level of each.  If you are currently taking your essential fatty acids in supplement form, then you would be well advised to have a close look at the specific fatty acid concentration of this to make sure it’s in line with where it needs to be.

Food sources of Omega-6 fatty acids include poultry, avocado, eggs, cereals, whole-grain breads, baked goods, nuts, flaxseed oil, and sunflower and safflower oil.

On the other hand, good sources of Omega-3 fatty acids include cold water fish like salmon, herring, mackerel, anchovies, and sardines, as well as flaxseed oil, walnuts, pecans, and hazelnuts.

So while you should definitely be taking steps to ensure you are getting your essential fatty acids, also make sure you’re getting the right level of each one.

Reference:
Wertz, PW. (2009). Essential fatty acids and dietary stress. Toxicology and Industrial Health. May-Jun;25(4-5):279-83.

A recent study compared polyethylene glycosylated (PEG) creatine hydrochloride to creatine monohydrate (CM). Fifty eight subjects took either a placebo, 5grams of CM, 1.25g of PEG creatine HCL or  2.5g PEG creatine HCL. The study lasted 30 days and looked at body mass and muscular strength, power and endurance. At the end of the study, the creatine monohydrate group was the only group to increase body mass.  All three creatine groups increased muscular strength, but none of them increased power output of endurance.  Based of previous research, we know after 28 days, low doses of creatine monohydrate(2.5g) will saturate muscle creatine levels to the much higher loading protocols. So, while an interesting study, the author’s conclusion, while accurate based off their own research, does not take into account what we already know from previous research on creatine. Due to the design of this study, it didn’t tell us much of anything new or in anyway, show this new studied form of creatine was any better than creatine monohydrate. If they had matched up the doses between the forms of creatine, then we could have learned if this new form was any better or worse than regular monohydrate.

Herda TJ, Beck TW, Ryan ED, Smith AE, Walter AA, Hartman MJ, Stout JR, Cramer JT.
Effects of creatine monohydrate and polyethylene glycosylated creatine supplementation on muscular strength, endurance, and power output.
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 May;23(3):818-26.

By:ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION

If you’ve spent enough time in the fitness world, you’re well aware that everything is not always as it seems.  Exercise routines, diets and guarantees that work for one person may not work for another.  It’s important to remember that every body is different, and the reaction to various stimuli will therefore not always be identical.  For this reason, it’s important not to be sucked in by clever marketing campaigns and glitzy advertisements that promise results based upon the success of a few, or even just one, individual.  There’s a reason that most ads are marked with the disclaimer, "results not typical" - because more often than not, the statistics and selling points that are being used are the result of one exceptional person doing a combination of all the right things.

And while this is true of recommendations pertaining to nutrition plans and exercise selections or programs, the "one size doesn’t fit all" scenario emerges quite often when it comes to supplements as well.  While a friend or family member may experience dramatic effects while using a certain supplement, you shouldn’t expect to directly emulate that success.  Of course, one should be aware of the differences in effects even for those supplements that don’t promise amazing transformations or significant improvements in strength, muscle mass or body composition.  Even supplements making more modest claims can fail to deliver the expected health benefits.  And worse, some of these supplements can actually be detrimental to your health.  Luckily, scientists continue to investigate the effects of these products to warn consumers of potential risks.

One possible threat from a seemingly safe supplement came to light in the latest edition of the Journal of Nutrition.  The supplement in question is one that has risen in popularity recently and is now nearly ubiquitous, available in supplement stores, online and even in grocery stores and pharmacies.  The culprit? Coenzyme Q10.  The enzyme has been promoted for benefits such as slowing the aging process, preventing against oxidative stress, and stimulate energy production in cells.  CoQ10 has also been promoted as a weight loss solution as it can stimulate the metabolism and aid in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

While this all sounds very promising, there are some warnings that must be noted. The new Nutrition study analyzed the effects of CoQ10 through 25 months of supplementation.  Unfortunately, the results were not beneficial.  Moderate amounts of CoQ10 did nothing to prevent age-related losses in muscular strength, coordination, balance, learning and memory.  To make matters worse, a higher dose decreased acuity of responses to auditory and physical stimuli, and actually impaired spacial learning and memory.  As the researchers concluded, the results indicated that CoQ10 did not enhance fitness or provide anti-aging properties (1).

The lesson here is that even the most seemingly innocuous recommendations must be regarded with skepticism and researched appropriately.  Based on the data from this study, the risks of CoQ1 may seem to outweigh the possible rewards for some people.  It’s important to gather as much information as you can on all of your supplements so you can make an informed decision on what to use.

SOURCE:

1. Sumien, Nathalie, et al. Prolonged Intake of Coenzyme Q10 Impairs Cognitive Functions in Mice. Journal of Nutrition, 2009; 139(10): 1926-1932

If you’ve been diagnosed as having diabetes, or if you know diabetes runs in your family and you are at a high risk of suffering from it, it’s important you start taking action steps to control and manage the condition.

Often this means many lifestyle and exercise changes that will help your body better handle the carbohydrates you consume and work to prevent any excess weight gain.

Recently researchers out of the National institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases looked at the effects of artificial sweeteners on glucose, insulin, and GLP-1 in humans.   GLP-1 is the glucagons-like peptide that is known for its role in increasing insulin secretion from the pancreas when glucose is present while also decreasing glucagons secretion, as well as increasing overall insulin sensitivity.  These factors related to this peptide make it quite significant for those trying to manage their blood sugar levels regularly.

The researchers had twenty two healthy individuals undergo two 75 gram oral glucose tolerance tests while measurements were taken of glucose, insulin, and GLP-1 at various intervals for 180 minutes following glucose ingestion.  

In addition to this, ten minutes before the subjects received the glucose load, they also were instructed to either consume 240 ml of diet soda or a carbonated water beverage.

After the results were in, it was indicated that those who consumed the diet soda had higher levels of GLP-1 release, making this a significant finding for diabetes control.

From this study we can conclude that diabetics in particular should watch the amount of artificial sweeteners they are consuming, especially if they are going to be taking in more carbohydrates in a particular meal as it may cause additional effects on their blood sugar levels.

If they are unaware of how their body reacts to this it will make it more difficult to cope and manage the condition.

Reference:

Brown, RJ., Rother, KI. & Walter, M. (2009). Ingestion of Diet Soda before a Glucose Load Augments GLP-1 Secretion. National institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Oct 6.

In most matters of fitness, it seems that any debate between different techniques or methodologies always boils down to some sort of oppositional dichotomy.  Inevitably, two opposites come to the forefront of the argument.  The examples are countless: Bulking vs. Cutting. Push vs. Pull. Upper vs. Lower. Full body vs. Body part splits.  Low-intensity, steady state cardio vs. high-intensity interval training.  Just as athletes are always striving to build the biggest, fastest, or strongest bodies they can, there is a constant push to find the most effective training methods to allow an efficient pursuit of one’s goals.  But when you think about it, it makes sense - who wants to waste time with techniques that don’t work when there are better alternatives available?  Certainly not me, and no one I can think of fits this description either.

One other popular debate that often arises involves the type of muscular contraction that is performed as the stimulus in strength training.  Muscles in the body can be contracted in three ways: concentrically, eccentrically, and isometrically.  In concentric contractions, the length of the prime mover muscle is shortened as it provides more force than the resistance, as in the lifting phase of a dumbbell curl.  In eccentric contractions, the length of the prime mover lengthens, as it works to slow a resistance that has a larger force output, as in the lowering phase of the aforementioned dumbbell curl.  And lastly, in an isometric contraction, the length of the muscle remains the same as it pushes against an immobile object.

While all three of these contractions stimulate muscle fibers, concentric and eccentric contraction are used more frequently than isometric contraction, and thus, a debate has emerged as to which method is more effective for strength training.  In order to clear up the debate, the August 2009 issue of the British Journal of Sports Medicine investigated the advantages and disadvantages associated with concentric and eccentric exercises.

Because muscles have the ability to attain higher absolute force during an eccentric contraction then a concentric one, many believe that eccentric contractions are superior in terms of building strength, as such exercises would provide a larger stimulus to the working muscles.  Despite this popular assumption, though, this new research indicated that when the intensity of training was comparable for eccentric and concentric contractions, the gains in total strength gained were not significantly different.  According to the data, strength gains with eccentric training were only superior to concentric training when the intensity was higher during eccentric training.

However, when gains in muscular size were compared, eccentric training proved to be superior, both when intensity of training was the same in both groups and when the eccentric group worked at a higher intensity.  Additionally, eccentric contraction adaptations seemed to be closely related to velocity.

Based on this research, eccentric contraction may be superior for building muscle size alone, but is not necessarily better for building strength.  In any case, a combination of the methods seems worthwhile, if only for the sake of variety.

SOURCE:

1. Roig, M., et al. The effects of eccentric versus concentric resistance training on muscle strength and mass in healthy adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis. The British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2009; 43:556-568

One of the key reasons many people don’t make progress with their resistance training program is because they are simply doing too much volume. It’s important to remember that the body only grows during the rest portion of your day, while during your workout it’s being broken down.

If you are going into the gym and performing a very high amount of volume, this is going to take much longer to recover from than a reduced volume workout, thus if you’re not providing that rest, you aren’t going to improve.

Very often those who actually cut back on their volume show strength gains, and this is for the simple reason that now that they are doing less work, they can actually recover and that’s when they get stronger.

Recently a study was published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine that assessed this very thing.

The researchers had a group of 24 men and 26 women partake in a reduced volume workout program that lasted 10 weeks in duration.

Before the trial took place, the subjects were either working out three times a week or two times a week.  Those that were on the three day a week program reduced frequency down to two days, and those using a two day a week program reduced frequency down to one day.

They also had one group of subjects serve as the control who stopped training entirely.

The isometric strength of the subjects was then measured on two separate occasions, first immediately prior to implementing the reduced volume program and again immediately following.

The researchers found that immediately after training the peak isometric strength increased between 21 and 49.5% amongst the individuals.  The subjects who stopped training altogether lost strength however.

These findings then suggest that moving over to a lower frequency program will not necessarily limit the strength gains, but could potentially improve them.  If you fail to train entirely however, then strength loss will be evident.

So if you’re still hung up on a five-day-a-week program, it may be time to rethink that.  When it comes to strength training and progress, there is a very strong case for the ‘less is more’ theory.

Reference:

Bishop, LE. Et al. (1988) Effect of reduced training frequency on muscular strength.  International Journal of Sports Medicine. Oct; 9 (5):316-9

It’s no secret that resistance training has a number of benefits. However, despite the advantages associated with it, this method of exercise still seems to be suffering from the effects of a stereotype that supposes any amount of weight training will result in a big, bulky figure. Contrary to popular belief, this is not true. Although many women resist weight training because they feel the activity will result in a more manly physique, those fears are unfounded. Men and women have physiological differences that prevent women from adopting the same build as men.

In addition, many men will avoid resistance training because they are just trying to "slim down" or "tone up." What they fail to realize is that resistance training isn’t just for bodybuilders. In fact, an individual is not going to acquire a big and buff physique unless a consistent caloric surplus is maintained. But if one simply consumes their maintenance level of calories or just below, there will be positive changes in body composition (ie, less fat mass and more lean mass), but not a dramatic increase in muscle size.

Of course, there is also the misconception that resistance training isn’t a good idea for weight-management because it doesn’t burn very many calories. This could not be farther from the truth. In fact, an hour of vigorous weight lifting will burn about twice as many calories as an hour of treadmill walking at two miles per hour. In addition, resistance training raises one’s metabolism for many hours after the session is over, burning additional calories. Also, muscle mass itself requires quite a few calories to maintain, so the more muscle one has, the faster his metabolism will be. And last but certainly not least is the fact that research has shown that low muscle mass is associated with "clustered metabolic risk" - a condition that puts one at a higher susceptibility for cardiovascular disease and obesity-related disorders (1).

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to adopting a resistance training program, though, is the fear that it will take a very considerable commitment to achieve any results. But just like all of the aforementioned ideas about fitness, this belief is mistaken as well. In fact, a study published recently in the journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise found that positive benefits of resistance training can come in a surprisingly short amount of time. The six-month study found that just 11 minutes of resistance training resulted in a "chronic increase in energy expenditure." In other words, metabolic rate didn’t just increase during the sessions; resting metabolic rate increased by more than seven percent, and the data also indicated increased fat oxidation (fat burning) (2).

Given this new data, there’s really no reason not to begin resistance training. In less than the time it takes to watch half of a television show, you can significantly increase you resting metabolic rate and increase your likelihood of burning fat for energy.

SOURCES:

1. Steene-Johannessen, Jostein, et al. Low Muscle Fitness Is Associated with Metabolic Risk in Youth. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2009; 41(7): 1361-1367

2. Kirk, Erik P., et al. Minimal Resistance Training Improves Daily Energy Expenditure and Fat Oxidation. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2009; 41(5): 1122-1129

Typically you can fairly easily divide groups of people into two different supplement profiles: those who are looking for body image enhancing supplements (aimed to help you lose fat or build muscle) and those who are looking for performance or health enhancing supplements (aimed to boost your workout potential or improve your overall health).

In some cases a particular supplement can offer the benefits of both worlds, however in other cases they are more tailored towards one specific goal.

One supplement that you need to be careful with and match to your training goals is arginine.  

Recently researches out of Taiwan investigated the effects of arginine supplementation on the metabolic responses that went on in the body after a single bout of endurance training.

They divided twelve healthy judo male athletes into two groups and then perform a 60 minute exercise session at 75% of their VO2 max.  After the session was completed, they were then instructed to take either a 0.1g/kg of body weight arginine supplement or else a placebo.

Blood samples were taken before the exercise started, and then immediately after, followed by 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes later.  The blood was measured for concentrations of glucose, insulin, free fatty acids, glycerol, lactate, ammonia, creatine kinase, and nitric oxide.

After the results were in, they demonstrated that there was no difference in the levels of glycerol, lactate, ammonia, creatine kinese, or nitric oxide between the two groups.  However there was a significantly higher concentration of glucose in the blood, as well as insulin, and a correspondingly decrease level of free fatty acids.

We can use the information from this study then and apply it to our own training programs by adding the use of arginine if you are looking for performance enhancement (since the increase in glucose and insulin will improve recovery immediately after exercise) or discontinue use if you are looking for fat loss (to create more free fatty acid availability).

Reference:

Chen, KW. Et al. (2009). Effects of arginine supplementation on post-exercise metabolic responses. Chinese Journal of Physiology. Jun 30; 52(3):136-42.

Thanks to the dramatic rise of obesity in certain areas of the world, especially modernized countries such as the United States, the health industry has responded with a large number of supplements intended to promote the demise of love handles and pot bellies. These weight-loss solutions range from "revolutionary" exercise equipment hawked on late night television advertisements and intense, carefully-designed exercise programs to meticulously measured and restrictive diet plans and miracle pills and gels. While there is obviously no shortage of these dietary aids, there is a shortage of one thing - effective, long-term answers to obesity and its associated issues, such as cardiovascular disease and Type-2 diabetes.

The problem is that most of these products, workout programs and diet plans are designed - either intentionally or coincidentally - in a way that makes them effective for only a short period. A crash diet or a workout program that one can only struggle through for a few weeks may produce great results at first, but as these activities cannot be sustained over a number of years or even months in some cases, the eager dieter may eventually end up back at square one. Yo-yo dieting is all too common, and many people find that pounds lost through painstaking effort are quite simple to gain back. Often, this either discourages the dieter and the individual abandons all further attempts, or simply concludes that whatever method was used is an ineffective scam before moving on to another equally ineffective method.

The other issue is that many popular weight loss supplements - whether they work well or not - contain an enormous number of ingredients that may not be very good for the body in the long term. A lot of weight or fat loss supplement formulations rely on obscene amounts of caffeine to provide increases in resting metabolic rate, energy expenditure and a hunger-blunting effect. One problem with this is that after time, one will develop a tolerance to the caffeine and it will not be as effective. In addition, using strong stimulants for a long period can lead to adrenal fatigue. And even worse, research has shown that caffeine can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity, which can increase the risk of obesity (1).

So is there any weight loss supplement that actually works and doesn’t contain a large list of confusing, potentially deleterious ingredients? Sure - try a natural alternative, fenugreek extract. In the past, fenugreek seeds have been found to improve blood glucose levels and insulin responses, which provide long-term benefits in the fight against obesity (2). Additionally, fenugreek seeds have also been shown to improve HDL (good) cholesterol levels and reduce LDL (bad) cholesterol levels (3).

But that’s not all - brand new research, published by the journal Phytotherapy Research, has found other advantages in long-term weight management offered by fenugreek. This new study found that insulin response was not only improved with fenugreek supplementation, but that powder from fenugreek led to higher feelings of satiety, with participants feeling fuller for longer periods of time (4). This tends toward reduced food intake later on, and can also train one to recognize appropriate portion size, which will aid future weight-loss efforts.

Based on this research, fenugreek seems to be a viable alternative to potentially harmful weight-loss supplements or crash diets that offer limited, if any, results.

SOURCES:

1. Keijzers GB, De Galan, Tack CJ, Smits P: Caffeine can decrease insulin sensitivity in humans. Diabetes Care, 2002; 25:364–369

2. Sharma, R.D. Effect of fenugreek seeds and leaves on blood glucose and serum insulin responses in human subjects. Nutrition Research, 1986; 6(12): 1353-1364

3. Al-Habori, Molham and Raman, Amala. Antidiabetic and hypocholesterolaemic effects of fenugreek. Phytotherapy Research, 1998; 12(4): 233-242

4. Mathern, J.R., Raatz, S.K., Thomas, W., Slavin, J.L. Effect of Fenugreek Fiber on Satiety, Blood Glucose and Insulin Response and Energy Intake in Obese Subjects. Phytotherapy Research, 2009; 10.1002

If you’re looking to lose body fat, the single most important thing that must be done is to create a caloric deficit.  You can either do this through reducing back on the total calories consumed, increasing your activity levels so you’re now burning more than before, or with a combination of both.

Without creating a negative calorie balance, the body will be in an equilibrium with energy in and energy out or could see a shift in the opposite direction where additional body mass is added (fat or muscle gain).

After you’ve set your calorie intake for fat loss however, then the next step is looking at the macronutrient distribution pattern. This can be highly variable from diet to diet ranging from low carb, low fat, high protein, or isocaloric where there are an equal portion of calories coming from proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.

Different people seem to do better on certain types of diets since they can stick with them easier, but it’s still important to look at what the effects are of various macronutrient ranges on overall body fat loss.

Recently a study was published in the Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism journal that looked at the relationship between high or low carbohydrate diets with regards to physical activity level differences on obese women.

They have divided a group of forty healthy, but obese women into four different groups.  The first group consumed a low fat diet coupled with low exercise levels.  The second group consumed the same low fat diet however had higher levels of physical activity.  The third and fourth groups consumed high carbohydrate (and correspondingly low fat) diets and also were divided into a higher activity group and a lower activity group.

The daily diet and workout regime was carried out over a period of ten weeks total. After these weeks had passed, the researchers noted that those who were consuming the low fat, high carb diet and were less active showed greater fat loss than those who were more active, while those who took in the higher fat, lower carbohydrate diet and were more active showed greater fat loss than those who were not.

So from this study it appears as though more active individuals can tolerate a higher fat content diet while those who are not exercising will notice better results by keeping dietary fat lower and total carbohydrates on the higher side.

Keep in mind this still assumes your total daily calorie intake is kept in check as if that’s still too high, no fat loss will take place.  

Reference:
Lopez-Fontana, CM. et al. (2009). Daily physical activity and macronutrient distribution of low-calorie diets jointly affect body fat reduction in obese women. Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism.

In the world of fitness, it seems as though many people have exercise attention deficit disorder.  Simply put, as soon as some people begin on exercise routine or protocol, they’re already on the lookout for a new one.  Often, exercisers just don’t give their plans enough time and become frustrated at the lack of results.  What they don’t realize is that changing one’s body is more of a marathon than a spring - most alterations are made gradually, and visible evidence of progress can take a long time to develop.  For this reason, a perfectly good workout scheme can gain a bad reputation simply because not enough time or effort was put into the program.  Of course, some programs are poorly designed and aren’t going to deliver lasting results no matter how much dedication one displays.  For just as there are fad diets, fad exercise routines exist, popping up like weeds yet promising that the grass is greener.

At first glance, pylometric training may appear to be one of these fad workout plans.  After all, pylometric training is relatively new and doesn’t quite adhere to traditional strength-training procedures.  One major difference is that pylometric training involves rapid, explosive movements, rather than the slow, sustained lifting and lowering phases that characterize most strength or mass gain programs.  Additionally, pylometric training uses minimal, if any, added weight, relying instead on body weight and momentum to provide the stimulus for developing muscular strength.  And often, pylometric exercises mimic moves used in sports, whereas most weight-lifting exercises aren’t direct translations of athletic movements.

Despite these differences, though, pylometric training is quite powerful, and research has shown that it can be as effective, if not more so, as traditional strength training protocols.  For example, a study from the latest issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research compared the effects of twelve weeks of a pylometric training routine with those of a traditional strength training program.  The pylometric training consisted of three sessions per week, with exercises such as drop jumps and hurdle jumps.  The traditional training was also performed three times per week and included endurance, core stability training, knee extension and flexion and hip adduction and abduction.

After the twelve weeks, the pylometric training proved to be valuable.  Although the pylometric group had a lower average score in the countermovement jump than the traditional training group at the beginning of the study, the pylometric group ended up outperforming the traditional group by more than 3 centimeters in that jump at the end of training.  In addition, the pylometric group increased depth jump height by 18 percent, while the traditional training group actually performed worse in this assessment after the twelve weeks.  And these measures of explosive strength were not the only category in which the pylometric training produced the most positive changes; the protocol also improved contraction speed more than traditional training.

So if you’re tired of traditional training and want an alternative that can offer increases in explosive strength or improvements in sports performance, pylometric training may be for you.

SOURCE:

Campo, Silvia Sedano, et al. Effects of lower-limb plyometric training on body composition, explosive strength, and kicking speed in female soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2009; 23(6): 1714-1722

After you’ve successfully experienced a weight loss, the next step that you need to focus on is maintaining that weight loss.  Unfortunately the number of individuals who find they relapse as time goes on is quite high, therefore at the end of the day, while they were successful with their weight loss diet, they were not successful with keeping the weight off.

It’s important to note some of the differences that various types of diets can have on weight maintenance. Recently researchers out of Denmark compared three diets and what their impact on body weight and composition was both in terms of maintaining at least an 8% weight loss as well as for risk factors of cardiovascular disease or diabetes.

They had nondiabetic but overweight men and women randomly assigned to one of three different diet groups.  The first group was a moderate fat diet consisting of 35-45% total calories coming from dietary fat with at least 20% of those calories being from monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), the second group took in a low fat diet consisting of 20-30% of total energy from fat, and the third group was a control group who had 35% of their total energy intake come from dietary fat.  Protein was kept constant at between 10-20% of total energy needs throughout all three diets.

After the study was performed, it was demonstrated that more subjects who were consuming the monounsaturated fat diet dropped right out of the study, and that the group that showed the lowest weight regain was the low fat group – however all groups did show some regain.

Additionally, fasting insulin levels were decreased the most in the monounsaturated fat group, demonstrating that this diet may be superior in terms of diabetes development.  

From the results the researchers concluded that the composition of the diet did not have a very large influence on weight regain as all groups did show similar amounts, with low fat diets have a slight advantage.  Furthermore, the diet higher in monounsaturated fats, while it did have the highest dropout rate, also allowed subjects to see the greatest improvement in the ratio of LDL to HDL and fasting insulin levels.

If you’re attempting to maintain a weight loss you experienced, your best bet is to always find a diet that you find easiest to follow.  Adherence will be the top factor in maintaining a weight loss, but after that, it may be worthwhile to look closer at the individual foods you’re eating to see which ones offer the greatest health benefits.

Reference:

Astrup, A. et al. (2008). Comparison of 3 ad libitum diets for weight-loss maintenance, risk of cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: a 6-month randomized, controlled trial. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Nov;88(5):1232-41.